Sigma 17-70mm short opinion...

Just thought I'd share my short opinion of this lens.

I recently bought one out of curiosity after reading so much on it online. My short take on it...

1. Not an EX lens but it has that "pimp" flaked finish to it. It doesn't seem very durable either. In my limited use I've already wore a smooth spot on the focus ring.

2. 17mm is noticeably wider than 18mm on my Nikon 18-55mm but slightly less than the 17mm of my Nikon 17-55mm.

3. Color is slightly different. I knew something was off but didn't see the ugly "yellow Sigma" cast I had seen in the past so I dismissed it initially. You really have to shoot back to back to notice it but the color difference is slightly there.
4. Sharpness is pretty good. I'd say even wide open not that bad.

5. Now the really bad, the macro function advertised on this lens is next to useless. The lens extends a considerable amount as you zoom and only achieves it's "near macro" advantage over the 18-55mm at near 70mm. Of course it is zoomed so far out that it is impossible to get any light on the subject even if you have the hood off and use ITTL flash. It really amazes me that Sigma would advertise a "macro" feature when it is useless, unless you consider the ability to have an object almost touching the lens and still being able to focus on it. Unless your macro consists of backlit subjects and you plan on never using the included hood then I just don't see the point. The Nikon 18-55mm actually focuses much closer.

To sum it up, if you have a 18-55mm then just pass on the Sigma 17-70mm. It's hardly an upgrade in any meaningful way. It is slightly faster (apeture) and I actually found I could run -.3EC constantly with matrix metering with my D200 while getting similiar effective exposures in comparison to my 18-55mm making it even faster than it would seem. This is even shooting wide open with both lenses. Other than that I just wouldn't recommend it. Just my .02cents minus any samples this time. Life, family illness, and mulitple jobs tie me up pretty bad lately.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

The main difference I noticed was that the 18-55 was better at 18mm F3.5 at the edges and for contrast and colour, probably distortion too - the Sigma was way better at the long end.. 4 copies of the Nikon 18-55 tested including one which was pronounced fit by Nikon, useless at 55mm except for closeups making the lens an excellent 18-35 F3.5-4.5 with a closeup 55mm option tacked on (after the Nikon report, it would seem that poor 55mm performance at distance is part of the design).. the Sigma was great at 70 wide open much like the Nikon 18-70DX..

The biggie is the PRICE - the Sigma is a hideous price in the UK, it's well over £200 which is high compared to the £180 Ring AFS powered Nikon 18-70DX - Yeah the Sigma outperforms it at the wide end and matches it at the long end but pricing it like an EX lens but without the HSM or F2.8 constant aperture is a mistake - the Nikon 18-55 can be had for about £50 and is without doubt the biggest bang for buck in wide angle lenses regardless of mount so long as you view it as an 18-35.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

I bought this particular sigma lens and I love it. Only complaints are slight vignetting at 17mm, a bit noisy AF and the lens cap sucks

Othervise its very very sharp, contrasty, color neutral, sturdy and has a fast AF (not ultra fast though).

About the Macro abilities, I think they are great in daylight. I have made some okay close-up shots. True Macro its not, but the close focusing abilities are great.

I have taken a few shots below that illustrate its close focusing abilities - indoors.

I higly recommend this lens for great all-round use, and for people that are not overly welthy
--
Take a look at my pictures...
http://www.pbase.com/petergabriel

Peter, I was all set to see a sigma challenge occur and question Brokenz about maybe he had a bad copy of the lens....until I went to your samples on your pbase. I read the captions and before I had expanded any shot, I noticed some were "taken through windows". I closed the site and came back here. You can't make judgement that anyone is going to be persuaded by if your testing is of such a reckless nature. It is just setting the scene for what you may think is great image quality, and if that is your standard, well and good. But I know that Brokenz is very critical about his glass, as I am. I guess I may be treading on toes here, but a lot of people read these forums and make decisions on spending a fair bit of money from peoples input.
--
Warm regards, Dave.

If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Do you want $5 off a smugmug account? Use this coupon number zDQ5Fi6RaD7PM when filling the application out, hey I get $10 if you do, so thanks in advance!

I have used this lens, but must say that it is in no way near Sigmas 18-50 2,8 which some people say. Its Ok maybe u could use it for a 50D or 70D, but for higer resolution It´s just not up for it.

brokenz said:

Just thought I'd share my short opinion of this lens.

I recently bought one out of curiosity after reading so much on it
online. My short take on it...
1. Not an EX lens but it has that "pimp" flaked finish to it. It
doesn't seem very durable either. In my limited use I've already
wore a smooth spot on the focus ring.
2. 17mm is noticeably wider than 18mm on my Nikon 18-55mm but
slightly less than the 17mm of my Nikon 17-55mm.
3. Color is slightly different. I knew something was off but didn't
see the ugly "yellow Sigma" cast I had seen in the past so I
dismissed it initially. You really have to shoot back to back to
notice it but the color difference is slightly there.
4. Sharpness is pretty good. I'd say even wide open not that bad.
5. Now the really bad, the macro function advertised on this lens
is next to useless. The lens extends a considerable amount as you
zoom and only achieves it's "near macro" advantage over the 18-55mm
at near 70mm. Of course it is zoomed so far out that it is
impossible to get any light on the subject even if you have the
hood off and use ITTL flash. It really amazes me that Sigma would
advertise a "macro" feature when it is useless, unless you consider
the ability to have an object almost touching the lens and still
being able to focus on it. Unless your macro consists of backlit
subjects and you plan on never using the included hood then I just
don't see the point. The Nikon 18-55mm actually focuses much closer.

To sum it up, if you have a 18-55mm then just pass on the Sigma
17-70mm. It's hardly an upgrade in any meaningful way. It is
slightly faster (apeture) and I actually found I could run -.3EC
constantly with matrix metering with my D200 while getting similiar
effective exposures in comparison to my 18-55mm making it even
faster than it would seem. This is even shooting wide open with
both lenses. Other than that I just wouldn't recommend it. Just my
.02cents minus any samples this time. Life, family illness, and
mulitple jobs tie me up pretty bad lately.
--
Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the
3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Click to expand...

Brokenz,

I have not fully made my decision about the lens as a whole, but it is exactly what I hoped for as a all around lens having some macro capabilites. If you have shot with any short macro lenses, you know you have to get extremely close to get the full macro effect of the lens. I know it won't be good for bugs, but to get as close as possible to flowers and butterflies, I think it will be a great lens.

I just checked and the minimum focusing distance of the Sigma is 20 cm and the 18-55 is 28 cm, so I guess there is not a big difference. I don't have or have used a 18-55 so you may be right, but I still don't agree with your statement that the macro is next to useless. Maybe they should adverstise the 18-55 for it's close focusing.

Examples:





Regards,
--
Tim
http://tf442.smugmug.com/

Wow! I didn't expect such a strong response to this thread. I'm getting ready to meet with a client for a long lunch/photo session but I'll see if I can do some photos to show what I mean later on about the close focus abilities of the two. Between the Nikon 18-55 and Sigma 17-70, I still have both lenses.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Sorry for my broken english. By 'Taken through window' I didn't meen closed window. Just that I was to lazy to go outside and take som more interesting pictures. The pictures I have taken is by no means "professional", but ordinary everyday shots taken without any preparation, to give an impression of how the lens behaves with the "common people" c",) Mostly I think the shots used to compare lenses are way to professional, both in craftmanship and in motive, so they give a much better impression of a lens' capabilities that the ordinary photographer rarely achieves.
--
Take a look at my pictures...
http://www.pbase.com/petergabriel

why the hell would anyone buy the sigma 17-70 over the nikon 18-70 anyway

Forget about any test.

After your scathing attack on the Sigma 17-70, the possibility of you conducting an unbiased comparison is remote. Actually no test is needed. The macro evidence presented by TF442 speaks for itself. I would be proud to have taken those snaps with any lens.

I think it would be more beneficial to demonstrate what you can do with a camera/lens, rather than complaining about what you can’t.

Snapping out,

d

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

Forget about any test.

After your scathing attack on the Sigma 17-70, the possibility of
you conducting an unbiased comparison is remote. Actually no test
is needed. The macro evidence presented by TF442 speaks for
itself. I would be proud to have taken those snaps with any lens.

I think it would be more beneficial to demonstrate what you can do
with a camera/lens, rather than complaining about what you can’t.

Snapping out,

d

Click to expand...

I've demonstrated a hundred times here. I didn't know that people would get so personally hurt over one man's opinion. The macro pictures are nice no doubt. No doubt that the Nikon 18-55mm does focus closer though. I actually own both lenses. What do you base your opinion on?
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

It would really be helpful here if you would show examples of what you claim regarding the ability of the Nikon to focus closer. The Sigma is supposed to be able to get down to 1:2.3 or about half life size, while the Nikon only goes to 1:3.2 . Aside from the length of the Sigma blocking your onboard flash at 70 mm, it still should have quite a magnification advantage over the Nikon. That being said however, I have been pleasantly surprized at how well the Nikon works closeup with the onboard flash turned down a few notches.

Regards, Paul

--
Lili's Dad

http://www.pbase.com/lilis_papa

This is not a fancy test. Frankly I'm just not in the mood. All macro shots of the dragon are strait from the camera, apeture priority, wide open, auto white balance, jpg large, sharpening normal, tone compensation normal, color mode I, saturation enhanced, and hue adjustment normal. All were done on a tripod and available light. The first and third macro images of the dragon were done by taken each lens and zooming to the max tele setting, manually focusing to the minimum focus distance, and using the center focus point on the left eye moving the subject until the focus indicator was lit. First shot with the Nikon 18-55mm at 55mm.



Here is a shot showing just how much room you have on the subject at the minimum focus distance. Although my original opinion never mentioned on camera flash (someone should read my posts more carefully) you will note that you could light the subject with on camera flash if you were so inclined.



Without moving the position of the camera or subject I simply switched to the Sigma 17-70mm, zoomed to 70mm, and focused in on the eye until the focus indicator was lit.



Now notice how much closer the camera front element is vs. the Nikon 18-55mm. Not impossible to light with wireless flash but it should be pretty obvious it's a no go with onboard flash. Notice I don't have a filter or the hood mounted either.



Now with the Sigma again at the minimum focus distance at 70mm. Pretty sweet minimum focus distance huh?



Look at the subject position though. Let me emphasize that there is no filter even on this lens. How is this some great advantage over the Nikon 18-55mm and exactly how is it useable?



Let's look at that a little closer. Can YOU light that even with wireless flash? If so then more power to you!



Imagine it with that pimping hood that's included. Pretty amazing macro lens, huh?



In conclusion let me state that I don't think it's a worthless lens. If you need a little more speed and don't care about AFS then it may be a worthwhile upgrade. My main reason for posting this is to show exactly what I was stating about the macro feature being next to useless over a lens with a lesser stated maximum magnification such as the Nikon 18-55mm.

In other words if the minimum focus distance is a factor (it's a big one for me personally) then it's simply not an upgrade at all.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Peter Gabriel said:

I bought this particular sigma lens and I love it. Only complaints
are slight vignetting at 17mm, a bit noisy AF and the lens cap
sucks

Click to expand...

I actually haven't noticed any vignetting at 17mm yet. I'll have to look for that the next time I'm in the mood to play with it. The lens cap does suck but it isn't so bad if you don't use the hood.

Peter Gabriel said:

Othervise its very very sharp, contrasty, color neutral, sturdy and
has a fast AF (not ultra fast though).

Click to expand...

I agree it's sharp and the contrast is great. I wouldn't agree it's color neutral. That's in comparison to many of the newer Nikon zooms.

Peter Gabriel said:

About the Macro abilities, I think they are great in daylight. I
have made some okay close-up shots. True Macro its not, but the
close focusing abilities are great.

Click to expand...

Try focusing as close as you can at 70mm. I think you'll be in for a suprise.

Peter Gabriel said:

I have taken a few shots below that illustrate its close focusing
abilities - indoors.

I higly recommend this lens for great all-round use, and for people
that are not overly welthy
--
Take a look at my pictures...
http://www.pbase.com/petergabriel

Click to expand...

As an upgrade over the kit lenses Nikon makes I'd only recommend it for very specific uses.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

TF442 said:

Brokenz,

I have not fully made my decision about the lens as a whole, but it
is exactly what I hoped for as a all around lens having some macro
capabilites. If you have shot with any short macro lenses, you know
you have to get extremely close to get the full macro effect of the
lens. I know it won't be good for bugs, but to get as close as
possible to flowers and butterflies, I think it will be a great
lens.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, those are beautiful samples. I'm just a little dissapointed in the useable macro range the lens actually has vs. what Sigma advertises.

TF442 said:

I just checked and the minimum focusing distance of the Sigma is 20
cm and the 18-55 is 28 cm, so I guess there is not a big

Click to expand...

This is one area I'm going to pay alot more attention to in the future. The minimum focus distance spec. can be very deceptive (as it is in this case.) The Sigma extends considerably at 70mm while the Nikon 18-55mm does not. The actual working distance is hugely different between the two. See my post below with images for what I exactly mean. Please ignore the angry tone of it as it is really directed at a certain Dr. here.

TF442 said:

difference. I don't have or have used a 18-55 so you may be right,
but I still don't agree with your statement that the macro is next
to useless. Maybe they should adverstise the 18-55 for it's close
focusing.

Click to expand...

The Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro is the shortest traditional macro lens I own and it has greater working distance at an even greater magnification (1:1) because of a combination of lens length, minimum focus distance, and how little it actually extends.

TF442 said:

Examples:





Regards,
--
Tim
http://tf442.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

RoboJackson said:

why the hell would anyone buy the sigma 17-70 over the nikon 18-70
anyway

Click to expand...

I couldn't say exactly as I've never tested the Nikon 18-70 extensively. I've never found a copy (probably bad luck) of the Nikon 18-70 that I was overly impressed with. Off of the top of my head I would say the slightly faster apeture available wide open.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Paul Pasco said:

It would really be helpful here if you would show examples of what
you claim regarding the ability of the Nikon to focus closer. The
Sigma is supposed to be able to get down to 1:2.3 or about half
life size, while the Nikon only goes to 1:3.2 . Aside from the
length of the Sigma blocking your onboard flash at 70 mm, it still
should have quite a magnification advantage over the Nikon. That
being said however, I have been pleasantly surprized at how well
the Nikon works closeup with the onboard flash turned down a few
notches.

Regards, Paul

--
Lili's Dad

http://www.pbase.com/lilis_papa

Click to expand...

I have posted one example below. Ignore the angry tone as it is really directed at a certain Dr. that has gotten on my nerves. My contention is that Sigma should revise the spec for maximum magnification the Sigma 17-70mm is capable of as it is deceptive considering how useful it is.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

You conducted a very thorough comparison and I can appreciate your concerns. I just thought your bantering about of the term “useless” was a bit much.

And yes, I purchased the 17-70 instead of the 18-50. Although not as rigorous in my examination of the 17-70’s abilities as you, I am enjoying the lens and consider my purchase money well spent.

For those interested the 17-70 has been more thoroughly examined on the Canon Lens Forum.

Some of us are out there snapping out and loving every minute of it, and then some are at home still trying to figure out how to get their camera in the bag with the lens hood on.

“Man what do you have on the front of your camera? It looks like a lady’s hat.”

Just having a little phun,

d

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

You conducted a very thorough comparison and I can appreciate your
concerns. I just thought your bantering about of the term
“useless” was a bit much.

Click to expand...

Hardly bantering, that which is born of real use vs. your incessant fanboy rants born of little more than your lack of experience with more than just two lenses.

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

And yes, I purchased the 17-70 instead of the 18-50. Although not
as rigorous in my examination of the 17-70’s abilities as you, I am
enjoying the lens and consider my purchase money well spent.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that.

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

For those interested the 17-70 has been more thoroughly examined on
the Canon Lens Forum.

Click to expand...

No it hasn't. It's pretty clear you missed Miljenko's posts.

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

Some of us are out there snapping out and loving every minute of
it, and then some are at home still trying to figure out how to get
their camera in the bag with the lens hood on.

Click to expand...

These are the only recent photos I have with that lens processed...





Keep in mind I have hundreds upon hundreds of images needing to be processed at any given time. Between thoroughly testing a new body for event usage (I guess you just shoot weddings and such without doing so, something you should really let your clients know by the way) and keeping up with what people are paying for vs. personal images which cost me money, I simply don't have alot of time lately to do a "thorough" comparison although my posting history certainly does contain a few of various lenses.

Let's see some of your recent images. You run your mouth alot for someone with such an small posting history that hasn't apparantly posted even one image himself. Don't give me the usual troll excuse of not having a site. There are plenty of free hosting sites and I'm sure someone at the level of a "Dr" can figure that out.

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

“Man what do you have on the front of your camera? It looks like a
lady’s hat.”

Click to expand...

If you had tested your combination some then you'd know how much that hood is actually needed in use. An actual plus for the Sigma. Of course I guess an "artist" like you just can't be bothered by such things.

Dr Robert d Snaps said:

Just having a little phun,

d

Click to expand...

Just being a IMO. It's easy to sit back and attack others simply sharing an opinion. Let's now see your contribution.
--

Fit for release from a mental institution but banned from the 3-0-0-D forum since 6-2005.

Thanks for your opinion on this lens. I was curious about it since i ordered it a couple of days ago. I just hope it's a decent walkaround lens, don't care much for the macro function.
A couple of reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=415
http://www.pbase.com/jimcreek/sigma_1770_test_report